Not all post 2011 Satoshi appearance has been debunked

Such a sensitive topic, so let me note a few things before I start:

1. I will omit the guessing game of what Satoshi’s appearance would or would not matter/mean, what he wants or does not want and just present the hard facts.
2. Not disproved ≠ proved, so do not misunderstand me… oh some of you will, I know you will…
3. The hilarious Satoshi hunts, like the Dorian Nakamoto and Craig Wright sagas are out of the scope of this article.

LMGTFY

[Not Debunked] I am not Dorian Nakamoto

In the March of 2014, when Newsweek came out with its ridiculus claim that Dorian Nakamoto is Satoshi Nakamoto, the real one might have just spoken.

At the P2P Foundation website where Satoshi originally discussed Bitcoin, his account came to life once again:

This comment might have came from the real Satoshi. It has not been disproven. But again: neither proven.

[Debunked] I am not Craig Wright

In the December of 2015 someone sent an email to the Bitcoin developer mailing list from satoshi@vistomail.com, because Craig Wright, a con artist, for some reason desperately wanted us to believe he is Satoshi Nakamoto.

I am not Craig Wright. We are all Satoshi.

However this email turned out to be a hoax. From the headers we know it did not come from the vistomail email servers:

This was clearly a spoofed Wisconsin Roadrunner cable IP:

Received: from mail.vistomail.com (cpe-104-231-205-87.wi.res.rr.com [104.231.205.87])

[Not Debunked] Bitcoin XT Fork

I left the most sensitive topic to the end. In the August of 2015 someone sent this email to the dev mailing list from satoshi@vistomail.com.

I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list.  I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus.  However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.

The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth.  When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement.  Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto.  Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it.  By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.

They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be.  However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions.  For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network.  Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution.  I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.

If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project.  Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust.  This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.

Satoshi Nakamoto

Quick recap on Satishi’s email addresses:

He used satoshin@gmx.com (from original Bitcoin whitepaper) and satoshi@vistomail.com (from email logs). gmx.com is a free email service that may or may not have had location based restrictions on registration at the time. vistomail.com is an email service from anonymousspeech, the domain registrar proxy he used to register bitcoin.org.

• Interesting sidenote on the Craig Wright saga: he used satoshin@vistomail.com to deceive us, not the real satoshi@vistomail.com.
• Sidenote on the Satoshi’s email hack saga: satoshin@gmx.com was hacked, more specifically re-registered after it expired.

The technical analysis of btcdrak showed:

You can safely conclude the email did originate from vistomail.com servers and was not spoofed. It does not prove the account was not hacked of course.

There is also the common concern that it was not PGP signed, however

Satoshi has never to anyone’s knowledge signed anything ever with that key (or any key), nor is there any conclusive reason to believe that is even his key.

Conslusion

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. The notion that a comment or email was not debunked “does not prove the account was not hacked of course.”